Pankaj Dixit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5703 MP

                                                          1                             WP-16447-2021
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                         WP-16447-2021
                                   (PANKAJ DIXIT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                      2
                      Jabalpur, Dated : 20-09-2021
                            Heard through Video Conferencing.
                            Mr. Anil Khare, learned Sr. Counsel with Mr. Amol Shrivastava and
                      Ms. Pallavi Khare for petitioner.
                            Mr. Aman Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent-State.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition making a prayer to quash the

charge-sheet dated 23.09.2019 and also quash the order dated 01.06.2021 (Annexure-P/2).

Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that earlier petitioner had filed a writ petition No.1133/2020, which was disposed off vide order dated 25.02.2021. By the said order, this Court directed the competent authority to consider the reply of petitioner and take appropriate decision on it within a period of three months. Reply of petitioner was considered and rejected by an order dated 01.06.2021. It is submitted that grounds, which were raised by petitioner in his reply was not considered and reasoned order

was not passed. It is also submitted that charges, which are framed against petitioner are, prima-facie, not made out on the basis of charge-sheet and other material in departmental enquiry.

It is further submitted that as per charge No.1, petitioner, who was supervising officer, did not include offence under the Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in the charge-sheet. On going through the charge-sheet, it is found that offences under Section 3(2-va) of SC/ST (POA) Act is mentioned in the charge-sheet. Charge No.2 is in respect of fact that petitioner misconducted by not supervising I.O. to include Caste Certificate in charge-sheet. It is submitted that caste certificate of deceased son was made on 16.06.2016. It was filed along with charge-sheet

Signature Not and Court has also taken into consideration the said caste certificate. It is SAN Verified

Digitally signed by NEETI TIWARI Date: 2021.09.20 17:18:52 IST 2 WP-16447-2021 submitted that deceased Jaldhara was not having caste certificate and caste certificate of her son was enclosed and, therefore, charge No.2 is not made out. As far as charge No.3 is concerned, it is submitted that the name of doctor was not included in the list of witnesses, which was submitted before the Court. It is submitted that doctor need not be examined in the Court to prove dying declaration. Reliance is placed by learned Sr. Counsel on a

judgment reported in (2002) 6 SCC 710 Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra.

It is further submitted by learned Sr. Counsel that act of petitioner may amount to negligence but said conduct does not amount to misconduct and reliance is placed upon the judgment reported in (1979) 2 SCC 286 Union of India & Ors Vs. J.Ahmed.

On basis of said submission, it is submitted that charges framed against the petitioner is prima-facie not made out on the basis of material, which is collected against him and learned Sr. Counsel prays for stay over departmental proceedings.

Issue notices to respondents on payment of PF within seven days. Notices be made returnable in four weeks.

Meanwhile, further proceedings in departmental enquiry against the petitioner is stayed till the next date of hearing.

Certified copy as per rules.

                                                                              (VISHAL DHAGAT)
                                                                                   JUDGE


                      nd




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
NEETI TIWARI
Date: 2021.09.20
17:18:52 IST